Stinson v. State, 785 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). · Go Syfert
Search
Stinson v. State, 785 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
17 citation events (17 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Thompson (fladistctapp, 2016-03-04)
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Thompson
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
State v. Rodriguez, 785 So. 2d 759, 761 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Pitts, 936 So. 2d at 1128 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Myers
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
See Hunter v. State, 8 So.3d 1052, 1062 (Fla.2008) (holding that the defendant was not in custody where he was voluntarily driven to station by police, he was confronted with some evidence about another suspect, he was not handcuffed, and he was reminded several times that he could go home and officers would take him); Fitzpatrick v. State, 900 So.2d 495, 510 (Fla.2005) (holding that defendant was not in custody when he made statements during his initial interview with detective since defendant voluntarily complied with a detective’s request for an interview; defendant drove to police statio…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Rigterink v. State (2×)
Fla. · 2009 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Meredith, 964 So.2d at 249, 252 (defendant informed that he was not under arrest and that the interview was “strictly voluntary”); State v. Rodriguez, 785 So.2d 759, 760-61 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (defendant informed that “he was free, to leave at any time”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Duddles v. State (2×) also: Cited "see"
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2003 · confidence medium
State v. Rodriguez, 785 So.2d 759, 761 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).
discussed Cited "see" Cillo v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Rodriguez, 785 So.2d 759, 761 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (holding that appellee was not in custody when he was questioned at the police station and confronted with incriminating recorded phone calls).
discussed Cited "see" Cillo v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Rodriguez, 785 So.2d 759, 761 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (holding that appellee was not in custody when he was questioned at the police station and confronted with incriminating recorded phone calls).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Meredith v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2007 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See Pitts, 936 So.2d at 1128 ; see also State v. Rodriguez, 785 So.2d 759, 761 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (holding that, in the absence of any indicia of coercion or intimidating circumstances, being confronted by the police with incriminating evidence did not convert the otherwise consensual encounter into a custodial interrogation); Ramsey v. State, 731 So.2d 79, 81 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); State v. Poole, 730 So.2d 340, 342 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (holding that non-coercive police questioning about criminal conduct or activity alone does not convert an otherwise consensual encounter into an unlawful seizure …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Alfie STINSON, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
1D99-3958.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Jun 5, 2001.
785 So. 2d 759
Per Curiam.
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, Phil Patterson, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Karen M. Holland, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges his habitual felony offender sentence imposed for his conviction of trafficking in cocaine. See § 893.135(1)(b)1.a., Fla. Stat. (1997). The trial court committed an error, previously considered fundamental, in imposing this sentence. See Stanford v. State, 706 So.2d 900 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Clay v. State, 750 So.2d 153 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). However, because appellant's appointed counsel filed his initial brief after the effective date of the amendments to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b), appellant is precluded from raising this issue for the first time on appeal. See Maddox v. State, 760 So.2d 89 (Fla.2000); Harvey v. State, 786 So.2d 595 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001), reh'g denied and questions certified, 786 So.2d 28 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Malone v. State, 777 So.2d 449 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).

Accordingly, we affirm the appellant's conviction and sentence without prejudice to the appellant's right to seek appropriate post-conviction relief.

BOOTH, KAHN, and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., CONCUR.